On MSNBC this afternoon, Sandra Fluke truly outdid herself, attempting to argue that the people who disagree with the contraception mandate on religious freedom grounds are in the same category as people who oppose insurance coverage for leukemia. Just...watch:

What's important to note is that some of the folks who are continuing to object to this policy are actually worried about employers who are private companies, not religiously affiliated employers in any way, but the boss has a particular religious concern, and they want to be able to deny their employees particular types of healthcare. Now if you take a step back and think about that, that's--you konw, you work at a restaurant, you work at a store, and your boss is able to deny you leukemia coverage, or contraception coverage, or blood transfusions, or any number of medical concerns that someone might have a religious objection to. So the folks who are still objecting have some very extreme ideas about religious freedom and employee healthcare in this country.

Fluke attended Georgetown Law, but it's not clear that she's particularly skilled at her craft: she's not making a terribly logical argument, and it's based on a false comparison anyway. Contraception is "preventative care," in that it's intended to head off a pregnancy, which--although at times inconvenient for the couple in question--is not a disease at all, but instead the result of a decision to have sex. Leukemia is cancer, a life-threatening illness, which requires prohibitively expensive treatment and most decidedly does not result from a decision about how to conduct one's romantic relationship.

By now, we're all aware of the faith community's reasoning for its position on the matter--including that of secular, but nonetheless faith-infused businesses such as Hobby Lobby--which is rooted more in moral teachings than the basic proceedings of logic. But honestly, even if I wasn't on the opposite side of the morality aisle from Fluke, I would find her argument severely lacking. I did, however, enjoy watching her beclown herself, and I invite you to take the opportunity to do the same. Happy Friday!

The girl could get name-brand condoms at $70 and up per thousand, which is $0.07 per interlude, about what she’s worth to particularly desperate guys. Or she could get birth control pills for $9 a month at Target or Walmart, which may make it even cheaper, per guy, depending on how efficiently she delivers her services.

It takes a special kind of selfish for her to put the rather trivial cost of her hobby above the fundamental constitutional rights and human rights of those she demands pay her to have sex - and on the same level as saving the lives of those with cancer.

I’m surprised that the Fluke has time to give press releases ... would have thought Fluke-ing every male Harvard student would be a full time job ... wouldn’t want to miss out on any free birth control or abortion benefits by a lack of effort.

Her 15 minutes ran out a year ago. In order to stay relevant, she needs to become even more outrageous.

Just ask pierced moron if this isn’t the case.

Its called the kieffer olberdork syndrome. When you KNOW no one is paying attention to you anymore because you’re an airhead and a ratings slut, well, just get down and dirty and be more airheaded and slutty than you were before.

Example, this recent little bit of fartgas just got her pathetic name back in the news! Even for just a passing “fart in a windstorm” second.

YEAH, SUCCESS!

How empty this poor girl’s life must be.

17
posted on 02/01/2013 6:34:14 PM PST
by ConradofMontferrat
(According to mudslimz, my handle is a HATE CRIME. And I HOPE they don't like it.)

your boss is able to deny you leukemia coverage, or contraception coverage, or blood transfusions, or any number of medical concerns that someone might have a religious objection to.

Totally untrue. Your boss cannot deny you any legal medical insurance. In fact, how would he know what you purchase? Just don't try to force him to buy something he doesn't want to buy. Buy it yourself.

What's important to note is that some of the folks who are continuing to object to this policy are actually worried about employers who are private companies, not religiously affiliated employers in any way, but the boss has a particular religious concern, and they want to be able to deny their employees particular types of healthcare.

Do you think that religious freedom applies to churches and not to individuals? The first amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It doesn't mention churches at all. It is a right of the individual.

As someone afflicted with Leukemia, I sit here stunned that this Idiotic Liberal Woman has been given any credence for her ridiculously uninformed and biased opinion.

I guess the next thing she will commenting on is comparing Chemotherapy to Orgasm.

Another sad result of Obama winning Reelection is that people like Sandra Fluke have been given some form of credibility since their guy got more support than his opponent. Then we have that hideous creature who stars in the HBO “Girls” Series. My goodness, are all Liberal Women so Ugly, inside and out?

32
posted on 02/01/2013 6:57:05 PM PST
by Kickass Conservative
(I only Fear a Government that doesn't Fear me.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.